Ram Phere vs State of U.P.

Vinay Kumar Mathur, J.—The instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner for quashing of the impugned order dated 18.02.2009 except item Nos. 3 and 5 of the concluding part of the order passed by respondent No. 4 and for payment of arrears of salary along with interest and for refund of the amount which has been allegedly illegally deducted from the petitioner''s salary. Brief facts leading to the filing of the petition are that the petitioner was posted as Beat Incharge w.e.f. 09.05.1995 at Rehra Range, Itwa Beat and had requested for leave for his treatment to Range Officer, Forest who orally allowed him to proceed on leave. Thereafter, he remained on leave from 31.10.1997 to 06.11.1997 and reported for duty on 07.11.1997 with medical fitness certificate. The petitioner was placed under suspension on 21.11.1997 in contemplation of a departmental inquiry. In January, 2008, the Deputy Divisional Forest Officer, Balrampur was appointed inquiry officer. The charge-sheet was issued on 29.01.1998 and was served upon the petitioner on 06.02.1998. Three charges were levelled against the petitioner. The first charge was that in the combing 127 trees of ''sagon'' (teak) and 83 trees of ''sakhu'' totalling 210 were found illegally cut, valued at about Rs. 1,71,672/-. The second charge was regarding unauthorized absence of the petitioner from 31.10.1997 to 06.11.1997 and the third charge was that girdling of 103 trees was carried out while petitioner was posted causing financial loss to the State exchequer. The inquiry officer submitted the inquiry report holding the petitioner guilty. The disciplinary authority (punishing authority) vide order dated 02.05.1998 ordered dismissal from service and for recovery of the amount equal to financial loss caused from the petitioner. The petitioner challenging the report of the inquiry officer and also procedure adopted for the inquiry preferred Writ Petition No. 3375 (SS) of 1998 this Court vide its order dated 02.05.1998 quashed the order of punishment but provided liberty to the respondents to hold a fresh inquiry in accordance with law keeping in view the observations made in the order expeditiously. Payment of arrears and other consequential benefits were kept subject to the final outcome of the fresh inquiry, if any. The order dated 02.07.2008 passed in the above writ petition is being reproduced hereinbelow:--

Heard learned counsel for the parties. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the impugned order of dismissal dated 2.5.1998 on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice.

The brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that the petitioner was discharging duty as Van Rakshak. Later on he was designated as Forester and was posted at Rehra Range, Itwa Beet. While posted at Rehra range, he was charged that he had facilitated in cutting of 210 trees. A charge-sheet dated 29.1.1998 was served on the petitioner in response to which the petitioner submitted his reply. The Enquiry Officer without holding further enquiry submitted a report before the disciplinary authority, a copy of which was served upon the petitioner along with show cause notice dated 31.3.1998 to which the petitioner also submitted his reply.

The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Enquiry Officer has neither recorded any oral evidence nor provided any opportunity to lead evidence in defence. It is also, submitted that neither any date nor time, or place was fixed to proceed with the enquiry nor the petitioner was personally heard. The impugned order of dismissal has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice and without affording opportunity of hearing. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon various judgments reported in 2004 (22) LCD 1; Avadhesh Kumar Rastogi v. State of U.P. and others, 2000(18) LCD 906; Narendra Veer Singh v. Adhyaksha, Zila Panchayat, Zila Parishad, Etah and others and 2005(23) LCD 859; Raj Bahadur Singh v. State of U.P. and others and proceeded to submit that since the Enquiry Officer straightaway submitted his report after receipt of the reply to charge sheet it suffers from violation of principles of natural justice.

On the other hand learned Standing Counsel submitted that the Enquiry Officer submitted his report after considering the reply submitted by the petitioner. The petitioner himself has not adduced any evidence. There is no illegality in the order.

I have given my anxious consideration to the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.

It is settled proposition of law that regular enquiry means recording of oral evidence with opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses as well as an opportunity to lead evidence in defence. It is also very well settled proposition of law that opportunity of personal hearing should be afforded to the delinquent employee by the Enquiry Officer. In the present case, from plain reading of the impugned order of dismissal, it is apparent that the Enquiry Officer submitted his report merely after receipt of the reply to the charge-sheet. There appears to be violation of principles of natural justice.

During course of argument it has been submitted by the petitioner''s counsel that the petitioner has been made victim of the circumstances as he was neither In-charge nor he was conferred with power to look after the trees in question. In any view of the matter the petitioner cannot be held responsible for the occurrence which has been happened resulting in dismissal from service.

In case, some other officers, or authorities are involved then the Enquiry Officer shall look into the matter and record a finding and, if necessary, may recommend to Principal Chief Conservator of Forest to take, appropriate action. It shall be open to the petitioner to take defence in this respect.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the impugned order has been passed relying upon the enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer, which suffers from violation of principles of natural justice hence vitiates.

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 2.5.1998 passed by the opposite party No. 4 contained in Annexure No. 1 is quashed. However, liberty is given to the respondents to hold a fresh enquiry in accordance to law keeping in view the observations made herein above expeditiously and preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The payment of arrears and other consequential benefits shall be subject to final outcome of the fresh enquiry, if any.

The writ petition is allowed accordingly. No order as to costs.

In pursuance of the judgment, it is alleged that no fresh inquiry was held instead the Deputy Divisional Forest Officer, Balrampur, Gonda Forest Division who was appointed enquiry officer by disciplinary officer wrote a letter to the petitioner without formulating specific charges to contact him and in case he wanted to cross-examine any employee then he was required to specify names of such employees. Thereafter, the enquiry officer issued directions to the petitioner vide letters dated 29.09.2008 and 15.01.2009 to appear before him failing which final decision would be taken by the Divisional Forest Officer. It is stated that on 22.01.2009 the petitioner appeared before the Divisional Forest Officer and moved an application stating that the reply tendered by him on 24.11.2008 was sufficient. No further addition has to be made. Neither any fresh charge-sheet was served, nor any witness was examined to prove the charges/documentary evidence by the Establishment. It has been stated that the petitioner in the light of impugned order dated 18.02.2009 has submitted his joining report on 02.04.2009 and since then he has been performing his duties and getting the current salary. Vide the impugned order the petitioner has been held responsible for illegal felling/cutting of the trees and out of the total estimated loss of Rs. 1,36,840/-, half of the liability has been fastened upon the petitioner. Amount of Rs. 68,420/- has been ordered to be recovered @ Rs. 2,000/- per month from his salary. The petitioner has also been censured. It has been further ordered that the services of the petitioner were dispensed with vide order dated 02.05.1998 and against the said order, Writ Petition No. 3375 (SS) of 1998 was filed in which the said order was quashed on 02.07.2008 and since the petitioner had not performed any Government work during the said period, therefore, he will not be entitled for salary etc. of the said period. However, the said period has been ordered to be included for the purposes of calculation of pension. The instant petition has been filed challenging the impugned order of the disciplinary authority (punishing authority) excepting item Nos. 3 and 5 of the operative portion whereby his reinstatement and inclusion of the period for which he did not work for the purposes of pension has been ordered respectively.

In the counter-affidavit, the impugned order has been defended and it has been contended that the enquiry officer vide his letters dated 29.09.2008 and 21.11.2008 required the petitioner to put forward his defence and it was also stated that in case, he wants to cross-examine any of the witness, he may inform accordingly but the petitioner neither put forward any defence nor desired to cross-examine any of the witnesses. Personal hearing was also afforded to the petitioner vide letter of the Divisional Forest Officer dated 15.01.2009 whereupon the petitioner appeared and adopted the reply given by him earlier and as the petitioner had never desired to cross-examine any of the witnesses, therefore, no cross-examination of any witness was conducted and the inquiry officer proceeded further in the matter. Principles of natural justice were followed and fresh inquiry was conducted against the petitioner and the Divisional Forest Officer, Gonda passed the order dated 18.02.2009 in accordance with law. After the fresh inquiry, the petitioner has been exonerated from the charge No. 2. Only 50% liability of the financial loss caused to the State Government has been fastened upon the petitioner while 50% has been fixed on other employees. The petitioner has been exonerated for the third charge. Thus the inquiry has been held in a fair manner in accordance with law and also in compliance of the directions of the writ court. The petitioner had adopted his reply submitted earlier and did not want to cross-examine any of the witnesses. No illegality or irregularity has been committed in the inquiry.

I have heard Sri. Pt. D.R. Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Mohd. Mansur, learned Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents and have carefully perused the record.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that while quashing the order dated 02.05.1998 in the earlier petition liberty was given to the respondents to hold fresh inquiry in accordance with law in the light of the observations made in the judgment. It was incumbent upon the respondents to hold fresh inquiry if they so wanted, instead the respondents arbitrarily and in complete violation of principles of natural justice and without adopting the prescribed procedure for holding a disciplinary inquiry and also in complete disregard of the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 3375 (SS) of 1998 punished the petitioner illegally. Further submission is that the communication was sent to the petitioner requiring him to disclose the names of persons to whom he wants to cross-examine. No place, date or time for this was fixed. Later on the petitioner appeared in person. Since no allegation had been made against the petitioner, therefore, he was not required to submit any fresh reply. Thereafter, no date was fixed for further proceedings in the inquiry and no evidence either oral or documentary was taken and no opportunity was given to the petitioner to lead evidence in defence and the enquiry report holding the petitioner guilty of causing financial loss was submitted by the inquiry officer. Thereafter without service of the copy of the report or affording due opportunity of hearing or demanding any explanation, the impugned order has been passed. The petitioner had never conveyed that he does not want to cross-examine any witness but still no such opportunity was afforded and explanation was demanded within a week of the receipt of the communication dated 29.09.2008. Thus the entire proceedings are illegal and are vitiated. The recovery made in pursuance of the impugned order is illegal and amount illegally recovered is liable to be refunded in its entirety. The petitioner is also entitled for the arrears of the salary during the period he remained under suspension.

Reliance has been placed by learned counsel for the petitioner on the judgments rendered in Chairman-Cum-M.D., Coal India Ltd. and Others Vs. Ananta Saha and Others, ; Nanhu Singh v. State of U.P., 2011 (4) ALJ 462; Raj Bahadur Singh v. State of U.P. and another, 2005 (23) LCD 859; Awdhesh Kumar Rastogi v. State of U.P. and another, 2004 (22) LCD (1); Roop Singh Negi Vs. Punjab National Bank and Others, ; Mahesh Narain Gupta v. State of U.P., and another 2011 (4) ALJ 429; Chairman-Cum-M.D., Coal India Ltd. and Others Vs. Ananta Saha and Others, .

Sri. Mohd. Mansur, learned Chief Standing Counsel while defending the impugned order has submitted that after the judgment and order dated 02.07.2008 in writ petition No. 3375 (S/S) of 1998, the DFO, Gonda issued a letter dated 11.08.2008 addressed to Sub Divisional Forest Officer directing him to conduct fresh enquiry after giving reasonable opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, copy of which has been filed as annexure No. 3 to the writ petition. Further submission is that the Sub-Divisional Forest Officer (enquiry officer) on 29.09.2008 required the petitioner to contact him in case he has to say anything hi addition to his earlier communication dated 18.02.1998 and also directed the petitioner to inform whether he wants to cross-examine any witness so that the ''said witness may be allowed to be cross-examined by the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 24.11.2008 annexure No. 5 to the writ petition and on 21.01.2009, the petition informed the enquiry officer that he has nothing more to add apart from the reply submitted on 24.11.2008. Since the petitioner had already been informed the substance of imputation against him vide charge-sheet dated 29.01.1998, therefore, after due consideration of the relevant material on record order dated 28.02.2009 was passed whereby minor penalty of recovery of Rs. 68,420/- was imposed on the petitioner and he was also censured. It has been further submitted that the petitioner had statutory remedy of preferring appeal under Rule 11 of U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal), Rules 1999 but he did not avail the said statutory remedy and therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of availability of alternative remedy. Further submission is that no regular departmental enquiry is required to be held if minor penalty is to be imposed. The recovery from the salary of the pecuniary loss caused to the Government and recording of the censure entry fall in the category of minor punishment under Rule 3(i) and 3(iv) of 1999 Rules. Further submission is that Rule 10 of the 1999 Rules require only demanding of an explanation and after due consideration, appropriate order can be passed. It has also been submitted that there was no requirement of issuing any fresh charge-sheet. The validity or the competence of the disciplinary authority to issue the charge-sheet was not in question in the Hon''ble Court in the earlier petition also, therefore, there was no requirement of issuing a fresh charge-sheet. Principles of natural justice have been duly followed in the second enquiry, as adequate opportunity of hearing and defence was afforded to the petitioner. Lastly, it has been submitted that judgment in Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Coal India Limited and another v. Ananta Saha and others (2011 AIR SCW 3240) (supra) is not applicable in the instant matter as the competence of disciplinary authority to order enquiry or issue charge-sheet has not been disputed. No prejudice has been caused to the petitioner by the procedure adopted by the enquiry officer and the enquiry has been held in a fair and impartial manner and principles of natural justice have not been violated. Reliance has been placed on the judgments of Ratan Housing and Development Limited v. State of U.P. and others, 2012 (13) LCD 1566; Sukhdev Mishra v. State of U.P. and others passed in Writ-A 32502 of 2012 (sic) by an Hon''ble single Judge of Allahabad High Court dated 15.07.2012. Reliance has also been placed on an unreported judgment passed in Nepal Singh v. State of U.P., Writ-A 14403 of 2013 also delivered by an Hon''ble single Judge of Allahabad High Court dated 14.03.2013, Nagar Palika, Nataur Vs. U.P. Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow and Others, and Khurshid Anwar Khan v. D.M. Deoria and others (2009) 17 SCC 628.

The plea that in compliance of the judgment and order dated 02.07.2008 passed in writ petition No. 3375 (S/S) of 1998 proceedings under Rule 10 of U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal), Rules, 1999 for award of minor punishments was adopted and there was no legal requirement for serving a fresh charge-sheet or summoning the witnesses and recording their statements, has been raised by learned C.S.C., for the first time during the course of arguments. Since in the counter affidavit, no such plea has been taken, therefore, it appears that it was not a case of the respondents that procedure for minor punishment was adopted in the second departmental enquiry. From the perusal of the record also, it is apparent that the disciplinary authority never took any conscious decision to proceed under Rule 10 for awarding minor punishment. It may be relevant to point out that in the judgment dated 02.07.2008 in the earlier writ petition No. 3375 (S/S) of 1998, it was observed that the enquiry officer has submitted his report merely after receipt of the reply to the charge-sheet which in other words means that no oral evidence/cross-examination was undertaken. Therefore, the Court held that there appeared to be violation of principles of natural justice. Identical procedure has been adopted by the inquiry officer for the second time also. It was also observed in the earlier judgment that in case some other officers or authority are involved then enquiry officer shall look into the matter and record a finding and if necessary may recommend to Principal Chief Conservator of Forest to take appropriate action. While allowing the earlier writ petition, the impugned order dated 02.05.1998 passed by the opposite party No. 4 was quashed and liberty was given to the respondents to hold a fresh enquiry in accordance with law.

The decision of Hon''ble Supreme Court in Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Coal India Limited and another v. Ananta Saha and other (2011 AIR SCW 3240) (supra) has been referred by learned counsel for both the sides. It has been held in the judgment that for a fresh enquiry, issuance of a fresh charge-sheet is mandatory and where the earlier proceedings are quashed and the Court directs a fresh enquiry, charge-sheet also stands quashed and proceedings also stands quashed. The plea of learned C.S.C., that in the instant case competence of disciplinary authority has not been challenged, therefore, the judgment does not help the petitioner or is not applicable does not appear to have any force.

In my view, it was incumbent upon the respondents to issue a fresh charge-sheet to the petitioner because it is a settled legal proposition that issuance of charge-sheet is the first step for commencement of the enquiry and vide the judgment in the earlier petition a fresh enquiry (de novo) was ordered. In the instant case, undisputedly no fresh charge-sheet has been issued. However, on the mere ground of non-issuance of a fresh charge-sheet the proceedings would not have been vitiated had the prescribed procedure under Rule 7 followed and the delinquent given reasonable opportunity.

Rule 10 of U.P. Government Servant (Discipline & Appeal), Rules, 1999 prescribes the procedure for imposing minor penalties. The Rule is being reproduced hereinunder for better understanding:--

(1) Where the disciplinary authority is satisfied that good and sufficient reasons exist for adopting such a course, it may, subject to the provisions of sub-rule (2) impose one more of the minor penalties mentioned in Rule 3.

(2) The Government servant shall be informed of the substance of the imputations against him and called upon to submit his explanation within reasonable time. The disciplinary authority shall after considering the said explanation, if any, and the relevant records, pass such orders; as he considers proper and where a penalty, is imposed, reason thereof shall be given. The order shall be communicated to the concerned Government servant.

It is evident from the perusal of the Rule, that for imposition of minor penalty only an explanation is required by the disciplinary authority from the Government servant after informing him the substance of the imputation and thereafter the disciplinary authority after considering the explanation and the records may pass such orders as he considers proper and where a penalty is imposed, reasons have also to be assigned. In the instant matter, no such procedure was adopted by the disciplinary authority. Earlier full fledged regular enquiry under Rule 7 for imposition of major penalty was ordered and an enquiry officer was appointed who after the service of the charge-sheet without recording any oral evidence in support of the imputations and without getting any other documents duly proved held the petitioner guilty of the charges and thereupon the disciplinary authority passed the punishment order which was challenged in the earlier writ petition No. 3375 (SS) of 1998 and the said punishment order was quashed observing that the enquiry report was submitted by the enquiry officer merely after receipt of the reply of the charge-sheet. Therefore, it was held that there was violation of principles of natural justice. The disciplinary authority vide his communication dated 11.08.2008, copy of which has been filed as Annexure No. 1 to the petition directed the Deputy Divisional Forest Officer, Balrampur to submit the enquiry report within the prescribed period after affording adequate opportunity and personal hearing to the delinquent. This communication clearly indicate that disciplinary authority had not decided to adopt procedure under Rule 10 for imposition of minor penalty but had directed the enquiry officer to submit the report enclosing the copy of the judgment after affording opportunity to the delinquent. There cannot be any other interpretation of this communication except that the enquiry officer was required to adopt procedure as has been prescribed under Rule 7 for imposition of major penalties. In the notice by the enquiry officer to the petitioner dated 29.09.2008, the enquiry officer clearly stated that he has been appointed enquiry officer for compliance of the orders of Hon''ble High Court by Divisional Forest Officer, Gonda and directed the petitioner to submit within a week his case after contacting him either in writing or verbally after receipt of the letter, in case, he has to say something in addition to what he has stated in his reply dated 18.02.1998. He has been further required to disclose the names of any employee to whom the petitioner wants to cross-examine. It has not been averred anywhere in the counter affidavit or supplementary counter-affidavit by the respondents that any oral evidence for proving the imputations/documents was recorded during the enquiry proceedings. It appears that after receipt of the reply of the petitioner dated 24.11.2008, copy of which has been filed as Annexure No. 5 to the writ petition and soon after the impugned order, the enquiry officer submitted his report without adopting the prescribed procedure and after receipt of the enquiry report, the disciplinary authority passed the impugned order Annexure No. 1 dated 18.02.2009. It is apparent that for the second time also due procedure as has been prescribed under Rule 7 of the Government Servant (Discipline & Appeal), Rules 1999 has not been followed and the entire proceedings have been conducted in flagrant violation of principles of natural justice and as such the proceedings are vitiated.

My view finds support from a judgment of this Court rendered in Ram Sajiwan Vs. U.P. Cooperative Institutional Service and Others, , wherein a Hon''ble Single Judge of this Court in paragraphs 10 to 13 has dealt with similar question and has held that disciplinary proceedings ought to have been held in accordance with law and procedure prescribed for major penalty, irrespective of the fact that final punishment may or may not have been a minor penalty.

On the basis of the above discussion, it is clear that a conscious decision has to be taken by the disciplinary authority for proceeding under Rule 10 if he so decides otherwise in case he appoints an enquiry officer in that eventuality procedure under Rule 7 has to be followed. It is not the discretion of the enquiry officer to proceed either under Rule 7 or under Rule 10 according to his own wisdom. Thus the argument of learned CSC has not force. It may not be out of place to mention that the disciplinary authority has also not agreed with the enquiry officer in respect of charge No. 1 and has not extended the benefit to the petitioner in respect of range case Nos. 30,72 and 59 and has held the petitioner liable for the pecuniary loss of Rs. 6540/- estimated value of the illegal felling of three Sakhu trees. It is clear from the perusal of the impugned order that while disagreeing with the finding of the enquiry officer and substituting his own findings, copy of findings were not supplied and no opportunity was afforded to the petitioner to place his version.

As regards the availability of alternative remedy by way of filing departmental appeal under Rule 11 of 1999 Rules, reliance has been placed by learned Chief Standing Counsel on the judgments rendered in Ratan Housing and Development Limited v. State of U.P. (supra), Sukhdev Mishra v. State of U.P., and others (supra), Nepal Singh v. State of U.P. (supra) in which Hon''ble Single Judges of this Court have held that if a statutory remedy by way of filing appeal is available to a person, the same shall not be amenable to writ jurisdiction and when the remedy of appeal under Rule 11 is available the petition will not be maintainable on the ground of availability of alternative remedy. On the converse in Harbanslal Sahnia and Another Vs. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. and Others, , it has been held by Hon''ble Supreme Court that rule of exclusion of writ jurisdiction by availability of an alternative remedy is a rule of discretion and not one of compulsion, in an appropriate case, instead of availability of alternative remedy, the High Court may still exercise its writ jurisdiction in three contingencies:--

(1) One where the writ petition seeks enforcement of any of the fundamental rights.

(2) Where there is failure of the principles of natural justice; or

(3) Where orders or proceedings are wholly is without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged.

In U.P. State Bridge Corporation Ltd. and Others Vs. U.P. Rajya Setu Nigam S. Karamchari Sangh, . The Hon''ble Supreme Court has held that the issue of alternative remedy should be raised and decided at the earliest so that a litigant is not prejudiced by the action of the Court. Since the objection is one in the nature of demurrer. In the instant case, the question of availability of alternative remedy was not raised by the respondents in the earlier writ petition also. While allowing the writ petition this Court in its judgment dated 02.07.2008 had provided liberty to the respondents to hold a fresh enquiry in accordance with law keeping in view the observations made in the judgment. However, the respondents did not initiate de novo enquiry and instead asked the petitioner in continuation of the earlier enquiry to submit additional ground, if any, and to disclose whether the petitioner wants to cross-examine any of the employees. The petitioner in obedience of the direction moved an application stating that the reply tendered by him on 24.11.2008 was sufficient. No witness was examined in the enquiry proceedings and no documentary evidence was given. The enquiry officer thereafter concluded the enquiry and submitted his report on the basis of evidence which was available at the time of the earlier enquiry report and fastened the liability for illegal felling/cutting of trees to the extent of half upon the petitioner arbitrarily. The enquiry was not proceeded in accordance with observation that if the respondents decide to hold afresh enquiry, the same be held in the light of the observations in the earlier judgment. The procedure adopted by the enquiry officer, prima facie is arbitrary and incorrect and principles of natural justice have not been adhered to by the enquiry officer while holding the enquiry and likewise the impugned order fastening the financial liability and recovery thereof in monthly installment is also arbitrary and illegal as no opportunity was given to the petitioner while disagreeing with some of the findings and substituting his own findings.

In view of the above, discussion, I am of the view that-no fruitful purpose will be served by relegating the petitioner to the departmental proceedings once again. The petitioner has been involved in the departmental proceedings/litigation for almost 15 years and the disciplinary proceedings have been decided twice but on both the occasions, the procedure prescribed under Rule 7 of the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1999 has not been followed. Therefore, the punishment awarded by the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law. The petition is partly allowed and the impugned order dated 18.02.2009 except Item Nos. 3 and 5 of the concluding part of the order as contained in Annexure No. 1 are hereby quashed. The amount deducted from the petitioner''s salary is directed to be refunded to the petitioner within a period of two months from today. It is further directed that the respondents after affording opportunity to the petitioner to place his claim for the payment of arrears of the period during which he remained under suspension and after providing personal hearing shall reconsider the matter of payment of arrears of salary and pass reasoned order in this respect also within the said period.